OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the role of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT, FDG PET/CT and (99m)Tc-MDP bone scans in the detection of bone metastases in patients with lung, breast and prostate carcinoma. METHODS: This was a prospective study including patients for staging (S) and restaging (R). Seventy-two patients (23S, 49R) with infiltrating ductal breast carcinoma, 49 patients (25S, 24R) with prostate adenocarcinoma and 30 patients (17S, 13R) with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), without known bone metastases but with high risk/clinical suspicion for the same, underwent a (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan, FDG PET/CT and (18)F-fluoride PET/CT within 2 weeks. All scans were reviewed by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, and the findings were correlated with MRI/thin-slice CT/skeletal survey. Histological verification was done wherever feasible. RESULTS: Sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT was 100 % in all three malignancies, while that of FDG PET/CT was 79 % and 73 % in NSCLC, 73 % and 80 % in breast cancer and 72 and 65 % in prostate cancer. Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of FDG PET/CT were 100 % in NSCLC and prostate and 97 % and 96 % in breast cancer. As compared to the (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan, all parameters were superior for (18)F-fluoride PET/CT in prostate and breast cancer, but sensitivity and NPV were equal in NSCLC. The MDP bone scan had superior sensitivity and NPV compared to FDG PET/CT but had low specificity and PPV. CONCLUSION: To rule out bone metastases in cases where there is a high index of suspicion, (18)F-fluoride PET/CT is the most reliable investigation. (18)F-fluoride PET/CT has the potential to replace the (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan for the detection of bone metastases.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare the role of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT, FDG PET/CT and (99m)Tc-MDP bone scans in the detection of bone metastases in patients with lung, breast and prostate carcinoma. METHODS: This was a prospective study including patients for staging (S) and restaging (R). Seventy-two patients (23S, 49R) with infiltrating ductal breast carcinoma, 49patients (25S, 24R) with prostate adenocarcinoma and 30 patients (17S, 13R) with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), without known bone metastases but with high risk/clinical suspicion for the same, underwent a (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan, FDG PET/CT and (18)F-fluoride PET/CT within 2 weeks. All scans were reviewed by two experienced nuclear medicine physicians, and the findings were correlated with MRI/thin-slice CT/skeletal survey. Histological verification was done wherever feasible. RESULTS: Sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of (18)F-fluoride PET/CT was 100 % in all three malignancies, while that of FDG PET/CT was 79 % and 73 % in NSCLC, 73 % and 80 % in breast cancer and 72 and 65 % in prostate cancer. Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of FDG PET/CT were 100 % in NSCLC and prostate and 97 % and 96 % in breast cancer. As compared to the (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan, all parameters were superior for (18)F-fluoride PET/CT in prostate and breast cancer, but sensitivity and NPV were equal in NSCLC. The MDP bone scan had superior sensitivity and NPV compared to FDG PET/CT but had low specificity and PPV. CONCLUSION: To rule out bone metastases in cases where there is a high index of suspicion, (18)F-fluoride PET/CT is the most reliable investigation. (18)F-fluoride PET/CT has the potential to replace the (99m)Tc-MDP bone scan for the detection of bone metastases.
Authors: Didier Lardinois; Walter Weder; Thomas F Hany; Ehab M Kamel; Stephan Korom; Burkhardt Seifert; Gustav K von Schulthess; Hans C Steinert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: V Trillet; D Revel; V Combaret; M Favrot; R Loire; A Tabib; J Pages; P Jacquemet; A Bonmartin; J F Mornex Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1989-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ida Sonni; Ryogo Minamimoto; Lucia Baratto; Sanjiv S Gambhir; Andreas M Loening; Shreyas S Vasanawala; Andrei Iagaru Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Randi F Fonager; Helle D Zacho; Niels C Langkilde; Joan Fledelius; June A Ejlersen; Christian Haarmark; Helle W Hendel; Mine Benedicte Lange; Mads R Jochumsen; Jesper C Mortensen; Lars J Petersen Journal: Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-11-01
Authors: Urban Simoncic; Scott Perlman; Glenn Liu; Mary Jane Staab; Jane Elizabeth Straus; Robert Jeraj Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Kent Friedman; Hersh Chandarana; Amy Melsaether; Linda Moy; Yu-Shin Ding; Komal Jhaveri; Luis Beltran; Rajan Jain Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 3.959